Loading ITAT cases…
207 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the impugned addition is not sustainable and ordered its deletion. The primary reasoning was that there was no reference to any incriminating material found during the search action. Furthermore, the assessment for the year under consideration (AY 2018-19) stood completed and was not abated on the date of the search. The Tribunal found that this issue was squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, based on the absence of incriminating material and the non-abated status of the assessment, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The ITAT, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was also cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revisional order, which directed the fresh assessment, had itself been quashed by an earlier order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on the quashed revisional order became non-est and infructuous, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the notice dated 28.07.2022 was invalid as it was issued in the name of another assessee and not generated through the prescribed income tax portal. Additionally, applying the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b), the Tribunal ruled that the notice for AY 2015-16 was time-barred as the six-year limitation period had expired by 31.03.2022. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 147 was quashed.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee, cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an appropriate order based on available records.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objections on the merits of the addition. It ruled that the AO acted on 'borrowed satisfaction' without independent enquiry, and the addition under Section 69A was invalid as the assessee was not found to own or possess the alleged valuable articles. The legal issue concerning the validity of the reopening assessment was not adjudicated by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had clearly declared and offered the income from house property and interest income for taxation. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was considered a double taxation due to a technical mistake in reporting.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed barred by limitation as it was served on the assessee after the statutory period. Consequently, the assessment order and the consequential penalty order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in regular business with accepted sales, had demonstrated the source of cash deposits from business activities. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 and invocation of Section 115BBE were not justified.
The tribunal found the assessee had discharged its onus by providing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for all subscribers, noting they had sufficient funds. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents (Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Rohini Builders), the tribunal held that additions are not justified merely due to delayed or incorrect-FY documents from subscribers, especially when the Revenue has powers to pursue inquiries. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The ITAT, noting the CIT(A)'s dismissal without considering merits, set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals). This was done to ensure natural justice, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present its case, with a caution to cooperate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the income of the assessee, being a recognized provident fund, is unconditionally exempt under Section 10(25)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal further held that the assessee is statutorily not required to file a return of income under Section 139 of the Act, and the filing of a return does not invalidate the exemption. Therefore, the income was mistakenly brought to tax.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the VSVS-24 scheme is unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed barred by limitation as it was served on the assessee after the statutory period. Consequently, the assessment order and the consequential penalty order were quashed.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to participation in the VSVS 2024 scheme, which the DR did not oppose. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if the VSVS-24 scheme is unsuccessful for any reason.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. It granted the assessee liberty to reinstate the appeal if the Form F-1 is not accepted by the Department for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the income disclosed by the assessee during the search does not fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied under this section is not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. Regarding the addition of ₹4,27,00,000/- from M/s Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by filing loan confirmations, ITRs, audited financials, and statements of source of funds. The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance solely on statements recorded during search operations was insufficient to treat the loan as unexplained cash credit, especially without corroborating material. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India), and CIT Vs Orissa Corporation. Similarly, for the addition of ₹87,00,000/- from Shri Sarju Sharma and M/s Fairland Sales Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided full details, including ITRs, audited financial statements, bank statements, and confirmations. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on investigation wing reports and statements, and that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned. For the estimated income of ₹2,24,10,020/- based on seized material GRC-12, the Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(A)'s estimation at 10% to be reasonable and fair, given that the AO's addition was based on presumption and assumption without a reasoned basis, and the assessee had denied the pen drive's contents. The Tribunal also held that interest expenses related to M/s Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited were genuine, being consequential to the acceptance of the loan as genuine.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings, finding that the AO had properly applied his mind and obtained due approval. However, the Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 8.00 lakh made under Section 69, ruling that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine sale of equity shares and the department failed to conduct any inquiry to disprove the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed Form 10B in due time and that there was no discrepancy. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11, and the demand raised was erroneous and deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024 which directs subordinate authorities not to challenge orders before the Tribunal if the tax effect is below Rs. 60,00,000/- and the case does not fall under specified exceptions. The Revenue retains the liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for revival if re-verification reveals a higher tax effect or the case falls within exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive these appeals by filing necessary miscellaneous applications if the VSVS-24 scheme proves unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal held that there was no requirement for TDS deduction u/s 192 or 194C for the payments made for salary, wages, and job work. Therefore, the disallowance made u/s 40A(ia) was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to revive it if the VSVS-24 resolution is unsuccessful.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without discussing the merits. Considering the assessee's condonation petition for delayed filing and their submission of new evidence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for a fresh hearing, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee and consider the documents filed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee the liberty to file a miscellaneous application to revive the appeal if the VSVS-24 scheme application is unsuccessful for any reason. The revenue's representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the Departmental Representative did not oppose it. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if unsuccessful in the VSVS-24 scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the DTVSVS 2024 settlement proves unsuccessful for any reason.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee the liberty to file a necessary miscellaneous application to revive the appeal if the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 is unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the payments were in the nature of commission for financial services and not royalty or fees for technical services. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS, and the demand for tax and interest was unjustified.
The Tribunal found the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the precise charge against the assessee (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) by not striking off the irrelevant limb. Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that such a defective notice cannot sustain a penalty, and thus set aside all penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1296 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an appeal against a defect notice under Section 139(9) on February 12, 2020, which was dismissed on March 20, 2024, after four years, as non-maintainable. The appeal against the Section 143(1) order was filed before the CIT(A) on April 19, 2024, which was within one month of the dismissal of the Section 139(9) appeal. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down in the Supreme Court's decision in DIT(IT) vs. Western Union Financial Services Inc. and other cited judgments, which allow for the exclusion of time spent prosecuting proceedings bona fide in a court or authority without jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the delay was bonafide and should be condoned to advance the cause of justice. The CIT(A) was directed to pass an order on merits after hearing the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that a valid notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory prerequisite for assessment proceedings under Section 143(3). Since the notice was issued by an officer lacking the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction, the assessment proceedings were rendered invalid.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the Ld. DR. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive it by filing a miscellaneous application if the VSVS-24 application proves unsuccessful.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It reiterated that additions cannot be made to completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A/143(3) without incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect of the case was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The non-appearance of one director was not sufficient to make the addition, especially when other evidence was provided and not properly examined by the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive these appeals by filing necessary miscellaneous applications if the VSVS-24 scheme proves unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions based on a previous order by the ITAT for the same assessee and AY. The revenue's appeal was dismissed both on merits and tax effect, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had only earned salary, interest, commission, and dividend income, and no business income. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the case to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly decided that the payment was not royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA and that the foreign company did not have a PE in India. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS on this payment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had gone into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and prayed to withdraw the appeal, to which the DR did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Delhi benches lacked territorial jurisdiction because the Assessing Officers' offices were not located within Delhi. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Delhi benches lacked territorial jurisdiction because the Assessing Officers' offices were not located within Delhi. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations, a valid contention was raised regarding the transaction being sale proceeds from shares, which was not adequately considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice and penalty order were contradictory, with the notice citing 'inaccurate particulars' while the order stated 'concealment of income'. This discrepancy indicated a lack of clarity and mechanical initiation of penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard, emphasizing cooperation from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was commission, not gross sales, and this commission was below the prescribed limit for Section 44AB. Therefore, the requirement to get accounts audited was not attracted, and consequently, the penalty u/s 271B was not warranted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's sales tax liability, classified as long-term, was unpaid during the relevant assessment year. Deduction for such liability is allowed only upon actual payment. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify actual payments made by the assessee in subsequent years and allow the deduction u/s 43B accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to improper service of notice on an outdated email address, denying the assessee an adequate opportunity. The dismissal solely on procedural grounds without examining merits was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the same. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- was found during a survey. While the assessee claimed it as business savings, the Tribunal observed that no proper evidence was produced before the AO or the CIT(A) to substantiate this claim. The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus placed upon him under Section 69A of the Act to explain the nature and source of the cash. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was justified. The appeal was dismissed.